MoveOn.Org: Censor The Climate Change Deniers?

Reverend Revelant wrote: So ******, do you rebut my opinion that this forum is just for hating? Do you believe that the conservatives here actually respond to honest debate with facts backed up by credible sources? Or do you just prefer the hating to debating?
I am quite willing to engage in honest debate with credible facts but have yet to find any but a very few able to formulate an honest opposition. Care to engage in honest debate? Or just go on hatin'?

I think the conservatives throw as much hate toward the liberals as the liberals on here (present company included). You hide behind your hate with sarcasm and superior attitude. It's both sides of the same coin and you're guilty too![/quote]

Still more hatin'. Obviously you do not desire honest debate, just throwing personal slams with no backup. Do you have any evidence to support your ad hominen attacks? I can show thread after thread where Blazer Bob cut and pastes a right wing blog that distorts the actual facts to create an "outrage" against liberals and the conservatives here echo the hate. I can show evidence where I have rebutted those distortions with actual facts backed by credible sources, yet all the conservatives do is to pile on with their hate and no facts. Do you deny this?

For example, Blazer Bob started a thread bout"consensus about lack of global warming based solely on a cut and paste from a right wing blog. I pointed out that this "consensus" was a single op-ed in a right wing blog from a fossil fuel lobbyist, and provided actual facts from a credible source that provided the data proving the fallacy of that "consensus". Bob's contribution was a link to videos about kittens, and Fred ranting about Al Gore and carbon credits. Other conservative posters provided false statements about climate researchers receiving billions from carbon traders, and other false statements. Not a single poster provided an actual credible fact to support the OP, including yourself, just a series of ad hominen attacks about worshiping at the alter of global warming and kool aid drinkers. Not a single fact, just hatin'.

FredHayek wrote: Agree, they should be allowed to choose which letters they publish. But they shouldn't eliminate one side of a debate just because their views are politically incorrect.
Even in you believe in climate change but don't agree with the solutions, you are labeled a denier like you called me. Just because it is a problem, doesn't make it the number #1 problem for the world. Billions of people in the world have raised themselves above subsistence level and are using a lot of energy they can finally afford, and creating a lot of pollution. Do you think it is fair to push these people back down? Or should only the developed world bear the brunt of the costs of replacing fossil fuels with undependable wind and solar power?

But they are not "eliminating one side of debate because their views are politically incorrect" they are not publishing letters that are based on factually inaccurate statements. If the climate deniers provide credible factual backup for their statements, then they are publishable. Just asserting that global warming is not occurring or is not based on human activities without providing factual evidence that overcomes the scientific certainty that AGW is occurring does not suffice.

Your other assertions are not germane to the issue that you originally posted other than it does demonstrate that deniers are using inaccuracies to support their position that others will suffer if actions are taken to mitigate against global warming.

Do you have any support for your assertions that "billions will suffer" if they are not allowed to create a lot of pollution? Or that it is necessary to replace fossil fuels with undependable wind and solar power? How many billions will suffer if global warming is not mitigated? Or that fossil fuels need to be immediately replaced by wind and solar. Natural gas is an interim solution over coal powered generation. Xcel came out last month and announced that the cost of wind power is now on par with that of coal power, and requested the PUC to allow them to add more wind power to the generation mix. What is the true cost of coal power if the costs to the public health and destruction of the atmosphere and planet are considered?

Something the Dog Said wrote: I can show evidence where I have rebutted those distortions with actual facts backed by credible sources, yet all the conservatives do is to pile on with their hate and no facts. Do you deny this?

Nope... you're 100% spot on.

And do you deny throwing hate at the conservatives?

Well ******, I admit that I dislike posts that promote bigotry, racism, intolerance, factually inaccurate statements, regardless of the political biases of the poster.

Something the Dog Said wrote:
I think the conservatives throw as much hate toward the liberals as the liberals on here (present company included). You hide behind your hate with sarcasm and superior attitude. It's both sides of the same coin and you're guilty too!

Still more hatin'. Obviously you do not desire honest debate, just throwing personal slams with no backup. Do you have any evidence to support your ad hominen attacks? I can show thread after thread where Blazer Bob cut and pastes a right wing blog that distorts the actual facts to create an "outrage" against liberals and the conservatives here echo the hate. I can show evidence where I have rebutted those distortions with actual facts backed by credible sources, yet all the conservatives do is to pile on with their hate and no facts. Do you deny this?

For example, Blazer Bob started a thread bout"consensus about lack of global warming based solely on a cut and paste from a right wing blog. I pointed out that this "consensus" was a single op-ed in a right wing blog from a fossil fuel lobbyist, and provided actual facts from a credible source that provided the data proving the fallacy of that "consensus". Bob's contribution was a link to videos about kittens, and Fred ranting about Al Gore and carbon credits. Other conservative posters provided false statements about climate researchers receiving billions from carbon traders, and other false statements. Not a single poster provided an actual credible fact to support the OP, including yourself, just a series of ad hominen attacks about worshiping at the alter of global warming and kool aid drinkers. Not a single fact, just hatin'.

I think you are confusing the words of others with the words by posters on this board. While it may be true that Bob posts more articles than opinion, that certainly doesn't mean those articles represent his personal views... am I wrong? I've seen him post many articles that are negative against conservatives as well. Some people just want to start off a conversation without endorsing or refuting the content... I made the mistake of criticizing him for that once. Who am I to dictate how people use this board, and who are you to do the same?

Personally, I'd like to see every liberal who ever posted on this board to come back and debate the big issues like the ACA, foreign policy, unemployment, taxes, etc. in a civil way without having to resort to teabagger/knuckledragger name calling. I'll bet the first person who does won't be harassed for making that attempt.

Something the Dog Said wrote: Well ******, I admit that I dislike posts that promote bigotry, racism, intolerance, factually inaccurate statements, regardless of the political biases of the poster.

You didn't answer my question.

Reverend Revelant wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Well ******, I admit that I dislike posts that promote bigotry, racism, intolerance, factually inaccurate statements, regardless of the political biases of the poster.

You didn't answer my question.

Yes, I did.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

Reverend Revelant wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Well ******, I admit that I dislike posts that promote bigotry, racism, intolerance, factually inaccurate statements, regardless of the political biases of the poster.

You didn't answer my question.

Yes, I did.

No you didn't. I asked about hate, not dislike. "And do you deny throwing hate at the conservatives?" Yes/no... simple.

Something the Dog Said wrote:
I have tried to engage these haters...

This forum has become a hate filled echo chamber...

a pseudo-journalist with over 6500 posts attempting to pass himself off as a religious sanctimous twit...

how idiotic their "facts" are...,

but is simply a forum for haters to hate...

And its not even funny...

The simple answer is that I frequently express my dislike for posts that promote racism, bigotry, discrimination, factually inaccurate statements, and the like regardless of the political bias of the posters. My dislike is based upon evidentary facts, not on political biases. That this answer does not conform to the limitations that you attempt to impose reflects upon you, not me.

My statement in regard to haters is based upon my definition for them for purposes of this forum are those who post factually inaccurate statements, and/or opinions that are unsupported by the actual facts solely based upon the race, creed, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, political biases, income, etc. of others. There are many conservatives that I admire and engage with often who do not fall within that definition just as there are others of political biases other than conservatives that I consider to be haters.